magistrsko diplomsko delo
Ana Zorec (Author), Marko Kambič (Mentor)

Abstract

Korenine instituta neupravičene obogatitve segajo v obdobje rimskega prava, kjer je načelo prepovedi obogatitve na račun drugega izhajalo iz Pomponijeve maksime. V rimskem obdobju niso poznali instituta neupravičene obogatitve v takšnem pomenu besede kot ga poznamo danes. V klasičnem rimskem pravu je bil institut neupravičene obogatitve povezan s štirimi različnimi pravnimi instituti, med katerimi je bil najbolj pomembna tožba imenovana condicto, ki jo je bilo mogoče uporabiti v primerih, ko je prišlo do neupravičene obogatitve ene stranke na račun druge. V obdobju postklasičnega prava so klasificirali posamezne tožbe ter razširili in posplošili njihovo uporabo. Najpomembnejša novost je bila, da je v nekaterih primerih verzijskih tožb, postal čas vložitve tožbenega zahtevka izredno pomemben. Tožbeni zahtevek se je v nekateirh primerih, tipičen primer je actio de in rem verso, že glasil na vrnitev tistega, kar je obogateni v času vložitve tožbe še imel in ne na vrnitev tistega, kar je prejel. Na temelju rimske ureditve sta se izoblikovali dve ureditvi neupravičene obogatitve: pluralistična in unitaristična. V Sloveniji velja unitarističnia ureditev instituta neupravičene obogatitve kar pomeni, da se tako za kondikcijske, kot tudi za verzijske zahtevke, uprablja splošno, generalno pravilo. V obdobju rimskega prava se je institut neupravičene obogatitve šele razvijal, zaradi česar so tudi vidne razlike med eno in drugo ureditvijo. Za razliko od rimskega pravnega sistema v slovenskem pravnem redu velja obogatitveno in ne vrnitveno načelo, poleg tega so veliko bolj urejena pravila glede vračanja (kdaj pride v poštev naturalna in kdaj denarna restitucija, kdaj se zahteva vrnitev koristi od uporabe stvari, kdaj lahko pridobitelj uveljavlja nasprotni zahtevek) ter pravila glede zastaranja.

Keywords

pravna zgodovina;neupravičena obogatitev;indebitum solutum;kondikcije;verzije;obogatitveno načelo;vrnitveno načelo;obogatitev;prikrajšanje;magistrske diplomske naloge;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [A. Zorec]
UDC: 34(091)(043.2)
COBISS: 16889425 Link will open in a new window
Views: 851
Downloads: 221
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Unjust enrichment in Roman and Slovenian legal system
Secondary abstract: The institute of unjust enrichment is based on the principle, that no one should be benefited at another’s expense in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. The concept has its roots in Roman law, and it is based on the old maxim of Pomponius. In Roman law, the institute of unjust enrichment was not known in the sense, as we know it today. It was not a general source of obligations, but rather linked with four specific legal institutes. The most important of all was the so-called condictio which could have been used in cases when someone was enriched at another’s expenses. In the period of post-classical law, individual actions were classified, expanded and generalized in use. The most important novelty was that, in certain cases, the time of filing the claim became extremely important. The claim (typical example is so-called actio de in rem verso) already referred to what the enriched still possessed at the time when the action was brought, and not to the return of what he had received. Consequently, two systems developed in dealing with unjust enrichment: the pluralistic and the unitary legal concept. Slovenia has adopted the unitary system with a general rule, which is used in all cases where an unjustified transfer of assets occurs. In the period of Roman law, the institute of unjust enrichment was only evolving, which makes the difference between the one and the other. Unlike the Roman legal system, the Slovenian law applies the enrichment principle and not the principle of restitution. In addition, the rules on return are much more regulated (when restitution in kind is required and when monetary restitution is appropriate, when the return of the benefit of using things is required, and when the recipient can make a counter-claim); the same applies to the statute of limitation.
Secondary keywords: unjust enrichment;condictio;actio de in rem verso;unjust enrichment claim;restitution claim;enrichment;impoverishment;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Study programme: 0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE): 1970-01-01
Thesis comment: Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages: 51 f.
ID: 11192511